ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO Vs. ZARIFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / applicant, Oriental Insurance Company, is scoring the condonation of delay by filing this CMP under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with regard to the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Ramban, on 23-l2-1992.

(2.) The judgment and award was passed by the Tribunal in presence of the counsel for the parties on the aforesaid date and the counsel for the appellant/ insurance company filed an application for the issue of certified copy of the judgment on 16-1-1993. The said copy was prepared on 20-1-1993 and delivered on 22-1-1993. In the application it has been urged that the copy of judgment was sent by post to the Insurance Company, which was received by it at Jammu on 29-1-1993. As the case was not within the financial competence of the applicant /appellant, therefore, after obtaining legal opinion at Jammu, the code was sent to the Regional Office at Chandigarh on 15-2-1993. The Regional Office after the receipt of the papers secured legal opinion and as the case involved some important legal question, it was returned to the Company's office at Jammu, for filing an appeal before this Court. The papers including the certified copy of the judgment were received by post on 31-3-1993 and during the first week of April, 3rd, 4th and 5th April, being holidays, the case was handed over to the counsel for preparation of the memo of appeal. The period of limitation for filing the appeal had expired on 23-3-1993 and thus the appeal was late by 15 days, which delay has been caused, as explained above.

(3.) Objections were filed and the application for condonation of delay was resisted on the ground that the application is hopelessly time barred, for the fact that the applicant failed to apply for the copy of the judgment and award well in time and it filed the said application after 24 days of the passing of the judgment and the counsel for the applicant /Insurance Company was present when the award was passed by the Tribunal. That the applicant/appellant has failed to explain the delay of every day and their contention is not bona fide. The applicant wants to frustrate the award passed in favour of the poor claimants and that the applicant being a State functionary has not acted fairly. That the delay cannot be condoned or excused, for the fact that no sufficient cause has been shown and therefore the Limitation Act has no application to the appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act.